The Quiet Road

Throughout the 20th Century, the United States has been a profligate energy consumer. The rapid and expansive growth of the economy was based on cheap and abundant energy. Little thought and planning have been given to how to transition to the realities of the 21st Century when petroleum and natural gas resources will become depleted. The U.S. economy uses 50 percent more energy per unit of GDP than the other developed nations of the world. The fossil fuel-based, automobile-centered, throw-away economy is not a viable model for the United States or the rest of the world over the long term. It is not sustainable.

But listen, you don’t have to take my word for it. Here’s what a recent United States Army strategic planning document had to say…

Throughout the 20th Century, the United States has been a profligate energy consumer. The rapid and expansive growth of the economy was based on cheap and abundant energy. Little thought and planning have been given to how to transition to the realities of the 21st Century when petroleum and natural gas resources will become depleted. The U.S. economy uses 50 percent more energy per unit of GDP than the other developed nations of the world. The fossil fuel-based, automobile-centered, throw-away economy is not a viable model for the United States or the rest of the world over the long term. It is not sustainable.

Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army Installations | Download PDF

I’ve had a pretty shit couple of weeks. Nothing in particular worthy of remark; just general shitness. The kind of lumpen malaise that inspires deep disillusionment with the world. And which, in turn, generates a “why bother” attitude towards writing. So, I’m sorry it’s been rather slow here, but whatchagonnado?

Mind you, I did spend a couple of evenings listening to Hounds of Love and fleshing out an idea for a novel I’m thinking of writing (with the provisional title; “The Stockhausen Manuscript”). I envision it as inhabiting that rarely-visited netherworld between James Joyce and Tom Clancy. More about that should anything come of it. (Incidentally, the always reliable Onion recently published one of their funniest pieces in a long time. Check it out. And while you’re at it, there’s a new Get Your War On.)

Thankfully though, the grim mood is passing for now. This could have something to do with the weather which has a distinct hint of summer about it. Or perhaps it’s astrological, or neurochemical, or biorhythmical. Who knows?

Another result of the deep blue funk (on top of turning this place into a ghost-town) was the fact that – by and large – I avoided the news media during the past 14 days or so. I was getting grimmed-out by everything, and current affairs programming was guaranteed to make things worse. Janet Daly (obnoxious rightwing columnist) on Question Time a couple of weeks ago was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I vaguely considered taking out a civil lawsuit against her for incitement to violence (it only took a minute of her capitalist cheerleading before I was in the mood to kick puppies and kittens). But in the end I decided to boycott politics for a wee while.

I can’t say I feel any different because of my news-avoidance, but the fact that the British government spontaneously went into meltdown as soon as I turned my back suggests that I may be boycotting more things more often. Seriously, what’s up with that? The last thing I saw before my break – politically speaking – was Charles Clarke nodding sagely at Daly’s buffoonery. Then upon my return, less than a fortnight later, the Safety Elephant has handed in his resignation (but had it refused) and stands accused of smuggling a thousand convicted murderers and rapists and drug-dealers into the country while nobody was looking.

Leastways that’s how the tories are painting it.

At the same time, the deputy prime minister John “Two Jags” Prescott is being hounded out of office because he shagged somebody. I’m utterly opposed, on principle, to the idea that politicians should be held to account for their sex-lives. But at the same time I have to admit, after nine years of nuLabor there’s a temptation to take any shot you’re offered. So in that context…

Certainly there’s a view that politicians; because they choose the job of representing tens of thousands of people at a national level; should be expected to have some level of personal integrity.

Who Prescott has sex with doesn’t affect his personal integrity in my view (I’m not a puritan in any sense). But the fact that he had affair(s) behind the back of his wife, does. Sorry, but that’s the way I see it. If you claim you’re being faithful, and are aware that your fidelity is important to the person you claim to love, then having affairs is a stain on your integrity. I know, I know, these situations are complicated and emotions often rule our decisions in this area… but cheating is still cheating whatever way you look at it. Prescott had an affair in the full knowledge that the revelation would hurt his wife dreadfully. And he did it knowing that the affairs of politicians (a job he chose, not one he was forced into) are far more likely to be exposed than those of most other people. On top of “cheat” you can add “stupid”.

So ultimately the question becomes whether or not it’s a good idea to give power to someone willing to lie to, and cheat on, the person he claimed to love most in the world. It begs the question; if he cared so little about her feelings (or was too fricking dumb to realise that his affair would eventually hit the tabloids) then how much less does he care about the feelings of those he represents?

Yes, yes, yes. It’s a cheap shot… and one I make with little enthusiasm. But so long as he’s deputy prime minister of a government with nuLabor’s track-record, then I humbly submit; he’s fair game.

And while both the Safety Elephant and Two Jags are being savaged in the press, up pops “Doctor John” Reid (Phd in Apologism and Revisionism) and The Mysterious Case of the Guest’s Cannabis. Turns out folks, you simply have to hide your stash in “a guestroom”. Then if you get busted, there’s no illegality involved. If the police question you about it, you must reply (and I quote) “I have no idea where it came from, or when”. Amazing the things you can learn from the news.

The police statement was also revealing… Dr. John was said to have “co-operated fully with police and is not suspected of having committed any crime or offence”. Apparently there’s a whole other set of laws for politicians. Because he clearly isn’t covered by the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act which makes it an offence to allow your premises to be used for the consumption of cannabis. It’s a curious piece of legislation which also applies to the smoking of opium, but not the injecting of heroin (yes, yes, I know. It makes as much sense as the rest of drug policy).

So whether or not Dr. John owned the stuff, the fact that it was found in his house clearly puts him under suspicion of committing a crime. Class C or not.

Of course, in an ideal world, nobody would have to be paranoid about the discovery of some plant matter in their home. It makes me rather irate, though, that the very people who insist that a draconian law like the Misuse of Drugs Act should be enforced, are apparently the only people to whom it doesn’t apply.

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.
– Albert Einstein

This is one of my favourite quotations. I believe it expresses an important truth. On occasion, however, I have seen a subtly amended version…

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. Those to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, are as good as dead: their eyes are closed.
– Albert Einstein

See the difference? Some would say that the revisionists are falling prey to “political correctness”. Trouble is; I tend to find that those who use the term ‘political correctness gone mad‘ or use a tone of dismissive derision when uttering the acronym ‘P.C.’ are actually people who have precisely zero understanding of the deeper issues involved (for instance the impact that a gender bias in language can have on a culture).

Some – indeed most – of the actual instances of “politically correct policy” are of course ludicrous. But that’s because they tend to be implemented by power-crazed petty tyrants who themselves have but a slender grasp of the issue. This does not mean there isn’t a discussion to be had regarding the ways in which language can affect culture and whether there might not be steps to be taken that would neutralise the more negative of those effects.

But there’s a few things that need to be said regarding this particular kind of revisionism. Firstly; the amended version of the Einstein quote, with the gender specificity removed, doesn’t sound right. For all intents and purposes the meaning hasn’t changed, but the sound of the words is clumsier. Stilted even. When compared to the original, it’s really not very satisfactory.

Secondly; Einstein was writing in German, and in the 1920s. Any misguided attempt to “update” his language will most likely end up like a badly-colourised version of The Big Sleep or one of those ludicrous bibles in contemporary English. It runs the risk of obscuring the meaning by focussing attention on obviously incongruous phrasing. Not what you want at all really.

Thirdly; while nobody would claim that Einstein deliberately used masculine pronouns to indicate that he was only talking about men; nonetheless any amendment is making assumptions. It sets a very dangerous precedent. The removal of the masculine pronouns doesn’t appear to change the underlying meaning of the quote… but that view is itself a product of a time and place. The impulse to strip such a quotation of its gender specificity, based on the belief that the specificity was not intended, is clearly a culturally-determined attitude.

To engage in that kind of revisionism, therefore, is to give tacit support to other; perhaps less benign; culturally-determined revisionism. Reaching back into the past and amending the words of historical figures to better reflect modern values is an extremely dangerous activity, and even the most timid and well-intentioned steps onto such a slippery slope should be resisted at all costs.

Ireland, like everywhere else on the planet, is staring down the barrel of an energy crisis. Petrol prices at the pumps hit an all-time high in Dublin this week. Adjusted for inflation, there were brief periods during the political instability of the 1970s when they spiked higher, but there seems little doubt that crude oil will be trading at above $80 per barrel before long, which outstrips even those earlier spikes.

Dr. Colin Campbell, of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO), speculated on Irish radio a couple of weeks ago that we could easily witness a fivefold increase on current prices by the end of the decade. When I mentioned this to someone, they told me it was impossible.

“That would mean I’d be paying €400 to fill my car. I can’t afford that.”

I pointed out that didn’t make it impossible. Merely extremely inconvenient for them. But consumerism has somehow – bizarrely – conflated those two distinct ideas in the minds of millions. Which is more than a little unsettling.

I’ve remarked on this many times, but it’s difficult not to find it remarkable. You see, watching “peak oil” develop from being a prediction shared by myself and a few hundred other people into one of the four greatest problems our civilisation will face (the others being climate change, nuclear weapons and Barry Manilow), has just been a remarkable experience. This conspiracy theory possessed by the lunatic fringe – the very premise of which was openly mocked by authorities and experts – has evolved so quickly and dramatically.

If you dig around the various political and corporate websites of the world, you can begin to see references to ‘peak oil’ emerging. But I believe the statement from Irish Green Party energy spokesman Eamon Ryan TD is the first time I’ve heard the phrase uttered in public by an Irish politician…

The only answer to the rising price spiral was to consume less, he said.

“Oil prices may spike above $100 a barrel within the year, but calls for a cut in taxes instead of moving to reduce our oil dependency were missing the point.”

“Prices may fall in the short term, before soaring when the long-term problems with peak oil really start to kick in.”

OK, so it is only the Greens. But it’s a start. And I’m delighted to see the words “consume less” appearing. People should get used to the idea of consuming less, before they have to get used to having less to consume.

What, I guess, sets Ireland a little apart from other nations is the fact that the government (Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment) have commissioned a report into the issue of Ireland’s dependence on oil. The Forfás report will be remembered as the Buzz Aldrin of peak oil studies. The second official document (after the US Department of Energy’s Hirsch Report – download PDF) to highlight the approaching crisis.

The key findings of the Forfás report are as follows:

• There is growing evidence to suggest that the era of a plentiful supply of conventional oil is approaching an end. Various experts and groups have developed projections for when peak oil will occur. While there is a wide variation of estimates about the likely timing, most expert commentators believe that 10-15 years from now, conventional oil supply will no longer be capable of satisfying world demand at current prices. While this subject is clouded by a low level of quality data, there is near global consensus that the potential consequences of peak oil for governments, economies, businesses and indeed individual consumers should be considered now as it will take at least ten years to prepare for its onset.
• Ireland consumed nine million tonnes of oil in 2004, an amount that has doubled since 1990. In 2002, Ireland ranked 3rd highest among the EU-25 countries in terms of oil consumed per capita.
• Electricity generation and transportation are the two main factors for Ireland’s high oil dependence. Ireland has relied considerably more on oil for electricity generation than most other EU countries and, as of 2002, had the 6th most oil dependent electricity generation system of the EU-25 countries. The amount of oil used for transportation in Ireland tripled between 1972 and 2002, leaving Ireland consuming at least 50 per cent more per capita than the average of the EU-25 by the end of the period.
• Taking into account the Irish economy’s relative dependence on imported oil and the relative share of oil in total Irish energy consumption, Ireland is among the most sensitive to rising oil prices and therefore among the most vulnerable to a peak oil scenario.

And the key recommendations are as follows:

• Ireland should undertake a number of initiatives to reduce the usage of oil in transportation, for example, by bringing about the replacement over time of the existing stock of vehicles with more fuel-efficient vehicles and the provision of alternative modes of transport, particularly public transport, that run on electricity rather than petroleum related fuels (e.g. electrified trams, trains and buses). The potential of using biofuels for transportation should also be investigated.
• Ireland should assess options to address security of supply concerns that may arise in the context of peak oil. Options should include expanding domestic oil storage capabilities and contracting bilaterally with oil-producing countries that continue to have a surplus of production relative to their domestic requirements. Accelerating plans to develop more East-West electricity interconnection with the UK would also provide a significant degree of energy security, subject to the UK resolving its own security of energy supply problems.
• Ireland should consider increasing the use of renewable energy sources for electricity generation (such as wind, wave, tidal energy etc), maintaining the continued operation of Moneypoint (Ireland’s only coal fired power station). Although not economically feasible in the short to medium term, Ireland should consider the possibility of developing nuclear energy as a more long-term solution.
• Ireland should adopt a proactive approach to energy efficiency, seeking to place Ireland at the leading edge of energy efficiency practices. The EU Energy Performance Building Directive (EPBD), which came into effect in January 2006 will provide a basis for assessing and improving energy usage in commercial and residential buildings that is intended to result in a more efficient use of electrical energy.
• Ireland should accelerate the implementation of the National Spatial Strategy in preparation for peak oil. Current spatial patterns in Ireland militate against the development of an efficient and effective public transport system. The development of regional gateways and hubs will play a key part in enabling urban communities to respond to the challenges of peak oil. Those communities that are adequately resourced in terms of public transport infrastructure will have greater choice in relation to how they respond.

Amazingly enough, this is all pretty sensible stuff for a government report. The clear emphasis is on energy efficiency, demand-reduction and replacing private car use with public transport. And for those who haven’t read it, that is in fact the general view taken by the report. I’m not selectively quoting, those are the conclusions in full. Which is why I’m so incredibly pissed off at the Irish Green Party’s response, and any respect I had for Eamon Ryan TD (their energy spokesman who made the “peak oil” remark) has been taken out back and given a good kicking.

You’re aware, of course, why the Greens responded with such mindless aggression (and believe me, “mindless” was a word chosen very very carefully). It was the word “nuclear” that did it.

No Nukes

Back when I was a teenage conspiracy theorist and UFO crashes were being covered up at a rate of knots, I would have been convinced that Big Business had paid off the Irish Green Party to rubbish the first sensible policy document to emerge in decades.

My mind is no longer clouded by the excitablity of youth. Now I just figure they’re a bunch of fricking idiots.

Let’s be clear about one thing… building a nuclear power station in Ireland would be deeply idiotic. Relative to our size, we probably have better access to renewable energy resources for electricity generation than almost anywhere else on the planet. The decision to use a non-renewable, horrendously expensive and deeply unpopular alternative could only be taken by the quality of moron that even mainstream politics would reject (hard though it may be to believe).

The nuclear debate is actually a very simple one. Far less complicated than the pro-nuclear side would have you believe and, I suspect, far simpler than they’re aware. According to the Australian government – who possess the world’s largest reserves of uranium ore – we have less than fifty years of the stuff remaining at current consumption rates. This fact will become more apparent as consumption increases when – inevitably – some countries do use nukes to mitigate oil and gas depletion.

I also have grave concerns regarding the safety of nuclear reactors and the waste they generate. However, I have no interest in discussing those as objections to a nuclear power policy. The sustainability issue speaks for itself and until that can be adequately addressed I don’t see the need to complicate the debate (note: In the comments, I’m willing to discuss the logistics of “uranium from seawater” and will even speculate on currently unproven technologies like fast-breeder reactors and nuclear fusion… but the last time I had those debates I came away convinced that they don’t – as of now – make nuclear energy sustainable). And replacing one source of energy with another experiencing identical supply constraints is not a sane policy.

People’s Front of Judea

Is it the mindlessness of the mob that leads institutions (such as the Green Party of Ireland) to shoot themselves in the foot so effectively? Or is it something to do with being a pressure group “in opposition” for so long, so that when someone finally starts to agree with them, they launch a fullscale attack?

And the sheer dishonesty of elements of that attack leave an unpleasant taste in the mouth.

In particular I want to address Eamon Ryan’s response. As the party spokesman on energy, I would expect him to be best informed on both his own party policies in the area, as well as on the issues involved. So I can’t make up my mind whether he failed to read the report he’s responding to, failed to understand it, or has a vested interest in misrepresenting it.

Ignorance, stupidity or dishonesty? Frankly I find none of them to be attractive qualities in a member of parliament.

We welcome the debate on nuclear power and are confident that a proper economic and scientific analysis of the option will show nuclear is not the right solution for Ireland. We regret that the Forfás report on oil dependency turned in the end into a call for nuclear power. Remarkably there was no economic or scientific analysis in the report to back up such a call.

First of all, they clearly don’t “welcome” the debate. The report they line up to “challenge”… the one the energy spokesman “regrets” simply calls for nuclear power to be “considered” as one of a number of options. That’s the word that’s used. It’s one paragraph in the report. It reads…

Another option for Ireland to secure its long run energy security, especially in relation to electricity generation, will be to consider developing the use of nuclear energy. Although this is explicitly not part of Ireland’s policy preferences at present, the revived interest in redeveloping a nuclear electricity sector in the UK will provide an important context for Ireland’s electricity options in the next 5-15 years. The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) suggest that, due to the large size of nuclear plant and the small size of the Irish electricity system, a nuclear facility would require so much back-up conventional plant as to substantially raise its overall costs, reducing any potential attraction for investors. The economically feasible scale of a nuclear power station would exceed the capacity of the Irish market to absorb its output. Therefore, Ireland is currently not an attractive location for building a nuclear power station. However, if smaller scale power stations were to come on stream and Ireland’s level of interconnection with the UK market was significantly increased, nuclear energy could become a more realistic energy option for Ireland.

Y’know, in the dictionary, under “equivocal” it says “See that one paragraph about Irish nuclear power potential in the Forfás oil dependency report”. Seriously, if that’s not a call for a debate, then what the hell is it?

Here you have a potentially influential report emerging from within government channels (also with potential for international significance… Dr. Robert Hirsch was a consultant on the report, so you can be sure it’s getting picked up by researchers googling for info); a report filled to the brim with sensible energy policy ideas; and yet the Greens seize on the one ambiguous paragraph that may, in a certain light, give them pause for thought. They’re not just throwing the baby out with the bathwater by painting this report as “a call for nuclear power”, they’re throwing a big sack of handgrenades out after it.

I don’t know what upsets me more… the diabolical nature of capitalism or the incompetence of those we elect to keep it in check. The most plausible explanation that I’ve come up with for Eamon Ryan TD’s response is that he heard an interview or had a discussion with one of the authors of the report. The author was pro-nuclear (i.e. someone on the opposite side of the debate to me and the Greens) and put forward a pro-nuke argument in the context of the report. Ryan didn’t read the report; merely presumed it reflected the opinions of the person he heard talking. Because except for one other mention (non-policy related) nuclear power is not mentioned anywhere else in the report. If you have read this whole article, you have read every relevant word it had to say on the subject.

If the Green Party are rejecting an important set of policy recommendations, and putting their weight behind discrediting them, based upon Eamon Ryan TD’s interpretation of some hearsay, then he needs to resign his brief.

We are now challenging Forfás to present their analysis. The authors of the report argue that we need nuclear power to provide for new electric transport systems. However, only 0.1 per cent of our current electricity goes to power electrified rail lines such as the Dart and the Luas. We could provide a hundred new Dart systems and still have little problem in meeting the increase in electricity demand through the use of renewable resources.

This also pisses me off. Notice the screengrab above, and lovely juxtaposition between the image promoting their biofuels policy and the line: “Remarkably there was no economic or scientific analysis in the report to back up such a call.” It’s pots and kettles all over the place. Except it’s not. Here it’s the pot calling something that’s not black, black.

The reason the Forfás report doesn’t present the “analysis” Eamon Ryan demands, is that it readily admits that the analysis has not been done. In fact, the report is very much a call for precisely that kind of analysis to be done. It urgently calls for assessment of all possible energy resources. This report was an investigation into oil dependency (the title gives it away: A Baseline Assessment of Ireland’s Oil Dependence). What it discovered was that there’s a big problem approaching. In response it calls for research into the best way of solving that problem. Yet the Greens jump up and try to discredit it.

This report calls for an open and honest assessment of our options. Furthermore, it lists several serious difficulties with the nuclear option – highlighting more cons than pros – while doing nothing of the sort when discussing renewables or demand reduction. Taken at face value, this report appears vaguely biased against nuclear power in Ireland. However, if some of the people who compiled it wish to argue in favour of nukes then they’re more than entitled to do so… that’s the nature of the debate that the Greens claim to welcome.

And in case it’s unclear as to why I found such irony in the juxtaposition of that challenge “to present analysis” with the ‘Biofuels’ image, let me direct you to my previous article (Biofuels – The fuel of the future) where I question the rationale behind viewing biofuels as a substitute for fossil fuels. It is my contention that by putting their modest weight behind Biofuels, the Greens are guilty of exactly the failure to provide analysis they wrongly accuse the Forfás report of.

Biofuels, if viewed as a serious contender to plug our liquid fuel shortfall, will result in catastrophic ecological destruction. George Monbiot – in his article, Worse Than Fossil Fuel – states that “Biodiesel enthusiasts have accidentally invented the most carbon-intensive fuel on earth”. He’s not wrong. HT Odum’s quip that ‘modern agriculture is merely an inefficient method of converting fossil fuel into food’ can be equally applied to biofuels. And quite aside from the energy inefficiency involved, the effects on biodiversity would inevitably be disastrous.

Is the Green Party of Ireland suggesting that arable land currently devoted to food production be switched to biofuel production? Or do they suggest we appropriate land from currently untouched ecologies? Either way, have they examined the effects that such an expansion of largescale monoculture policy would have on the environment they’ve selected to grow the fuel stock? My back of the napkin calculation suggested that Ireland would need to devote its entire arable land surface area to growing high-yield fuel crops, while still importing almost half its liquid fuel needs, just to drive the current private automobile fleet (i.e. not addressing freight, power generation, aviation, heating, etc.)

Let me make the same challenge to Eamon Ryan TD… present the analysis which suggests that biofuel is the fuel of the future. And that doesn’t mean a photoshoot next to a van running on used cooking oil.

The authors’ proposal that we contract for a lifetime extension of the Wylfa nuclear plant in North Wales, to feed nuclear power back across an Irish sea interconnector also makes little sense. The reality is that the British Government is never going to agree to this. They themselves are running short of generating power and having a heated debate about whether they should build new nuclear plants. There is no way they will not give up options such as extending existing plant lifetimes which could meet their own needs.

I have no idea whether the authors of the report recommend importing more electricity generated at the Wyfla plant in North Wales. Perhaps they do, but they don’t do it in the report. Unless the search facility in my copy of Adobe Reader isn’t working; neither the word “Wyfla” nor the word “Wales” appear in the text of “A Baseline Assessment of Ireland’s Oil Dependence”.

The report does indeed recommend a greater integration of the UK and Irish electricity grids. This is a staggeringly obvious recommendation, and anyone seriously examining energy security in Ireland would make it. I suspect that Eamon Ryan TD is correct when he suggests that the British government, when examining its own energy security needs, will refuse to increase exports to Ireland.

But that’s no reason not to examine the option and perhaps put out feelers… with a major investment in Irish windpower, it could well be beneficial to both the UK and Ireland to increase transmission capacity between the countries; with the British grid taking advantage of Irish spare capacity during periods of peak wind power and Ireland drawing on British spare capacity on calm days. I’m not suggesting it would work, but I fail to see why the Greens are challenging a call to examine the possibility.

There are many environmental reasons why nuclear power makes no sense but it will be ruled out here first and foremost on simple economic and energy policy grounds. The large size of nuclear plants within a small electricity grid such as our own means the cost of reserve power to cover plant breakdowns, makes it prohibitively expensive.

As I mentioned earlier, my objection to nuclear power rests on its unsustainable nature. And when I speak of “sustainability”, I’m speaking of physical systems sustainability; environmental sustainability. I see all matters of policy through that particular prism. Economics is never a consideration, and I despair when the Greens of all people place it “first and foremost”. My fundamental question is this: “Given a baseline requirement for a 100% sustainable civilisation, how can humanity organise itself and its available resources in such a way as to achieve this with the least suffering?”

Of course some of those terms need defining, but that can wait for another day. One thing that should be recognised, though, is that my insistence on “sustainability” is a philosophical / ethical / moral stance. And one I’m willing to discuss. I believe that through the use of military force and the ruthless exploitation of the remaining resources of the planet, we in the West could probably sustain our way of life for a while longer. However I consider that a morally repugnant option. We have a moral responsibility to those who are physically weaker than us, not to use our superior might to take advantage of that disparity. And we have a moral responsibility to future generations to provide them with a world that is at least no worse than the one we inherited.

Modern western civilisation is failing in both those moral duties. The Forfás report, by placing so much emphasis on demand reduction and energy efficiency, is proposing policies which will – indirectly – begin to redress that. I’m still confounded by the Greens failure to embrace the “all-but-one” paragraphs of the report that don’t mention nukes.

The Green Party is already putting in place real measures to solve the energy crisis we face far more effectively. In Fingal and Dun Laoghaire Councils we have put new energy efficient building standards into local area development plans which will cut in half the power used in our buildings, saving householders thousands of euro each year.

Excellent stuff. This is precisely the kind of activity recommended by the Forfás report.

Switching our car fleet to fuel efficient engines would save as much energy as a nuclear power plant would provide. Switching off our televisions and radios from standby could save the equivalent power produced by two of our peat fired power stations.

Both statements may well be true even though they sound so trite… where’s the analysis Eamon? Eh? But it’s the language of “business as usual”. And guess what…?

All these measures save the Irish public hard cash with no loss of the services energy provides.

See it? The “vote for me” line? The Forfás report implies that the future may well require sacrifice. That it won’t be business as usual. That our society faces significant problems.

The Green message – from the mouth of their energy spokesman – is that a vote for him will save you money, let you buy a shiny new space car and require no greater change in your lifestyle than switching off your telly before you go to bed.

Sleep tight.

It’s Holy Week here in the Catholic world. Preparing to commemorate the murder and resurrection of God made man. Easter dontchaknow. Catholicism isn’t really my thing. In fact, the whole dogmatic religion thing – particularly when based upon the political writing of mystics from another civilisation – simply makes no sense to me. I’d go further… it repels me somewhat.

Albert Einstein once said that “morality is of the highest importance – but for us, not for God”. And I believe that to be true. Allowing the long-dead prophets of dead societies write our rules of Right and Wrong is a heinous crime against ourselves. By shirking responsibility for our own moral system, we fail to engage in some of the most important debates that human beings should be having. And by tying our morality to books filled with superstition, we run the danger of losing all sense of moral responsibility when those superstitions cease to hold the minds of the people.

None of which means I won’t be taking advantage of the opportunity for a few days holiday. I’ll be visiting my folks down in West Cork for a long weekend. I’m spending most of tomorrow travelling; then eating lovely food and enjoying the idyllic clifftop setting until Sunday and finally spending most of Monday travelling back. Which means it’s possible I won’t post again until Tuesday. So until then… stay groovy.

Acocdrnig to rseecrah at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deson’t mttaer in waht oredr the lteters in a wrod aeappr, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbemls. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by itslef but the wrod as a wlohe.

I wnedor if it’s the smae for dlsyecixs?

I watched the weekly political debate show, Questions & Answers, last night. It confirmed all my worst fears about the corporatisation of politics. You’ve no idea how much it annoys me that the field of debate has been so narrowed; that mainstream politics has been reduced to a few ever-so-slightly differentiated shades of capitalist grey. The politicos on the panel were a Labour TD (TD = MP) representing the left, a government minister representing the centre, and an independent Senator representing the right.

The first question asked whether or not the privatisation of Aer Lingus “represents a good deal”. Now, it’s only since I’ve returned to Dublin that I realised Aer Lingus (Ireland’s national airline) was still state-owned. Not only that, but it is currently – relative to its size – an extremely profitable airline. In the past, during downturns in air travel or during periods of mismanagement, the company has required government / taxpayer support. Now that it is doing well, the current government (plus the main opposition party) think it’s a good idea to sell it off.

Presumably the idea is to make some quick cash on the deal before peak oil wipes out the airline industry. And regular readers might think I’d be in favour of that… offload an asset soon to become damn near worthless into the hands of a bunch of market speculators. Use the money to build a few hospitals. What could be wrong with that? Well. Quite a lot actually.

Am I never happy?

Well, yes. But not when a bunch of centre-right oafs are blundering around the country, selling off any public asset that isn’t nailed down. I once wrote that I believed Britain could still be defined, loosely, as a socialist nation up until Thatcher sold off the energy and communications infrastructure. By doing that she made a bunch of money for the already wealthy and ended the ability of the British public to control their own economy.

Recently this Irish government has flogged the telecommunications system, converting its legal status from “service provider” to “profit engine”. It’s interesting to note that investors are very happy with the deal, but the Irish citizen is less so. Leastways that’s the portrait painted by the media. Thankfully it looks as though energy production will remain public at least until capitalism begins to visibly decay (and hence, indefinitely). So Ireland is – in a specific, but very real sense – still socialist to a degree. As of right now, the public still owns significant assets, significant elements of the economic infrastructure and can exercise control over those assets through their democratic representation.

Few things piss me off more than watching politicians; the peoples representatives; shake their heads and meekly (or even worse, condescendingly) state that they can’t do anything about a social problem because it’s in the hands of private enterprise. For years successive British transport ministers agreed that the rail system was deteriorating, but told the public that they had no control over the way private companies are run. It makes me want to wring some necks.

Which brings me back to Questions & Answers and the subject of privatising Aer Lingus. The very first thing that should be pointed out is that this is a godawful deal. Even if I dust off that capitalist hat I tried on for size back in the 90s, the fact is – if you were going to privatise an airline, you really wouldn’t do it this way. The government intends to retain a significant, but minority shareholding in the company. This means there’s a siginificant reduction in the amount of shares being sold, and a consequent loss of income. On top of that, by retaining an influence on the company board of directors, it makes the whole airline less attractive to private investors who will worry about “government meddling” and fear that they won’t be able to make the business as profitable as they would like if it was required to go against the policy of the government of the day in order to do so (a government that could be Green or Leftist or anything in 10 years).

So essentially; from the point of view of the taxpayer, the government is nigh guaranteeing the lowest possible price while at the same time ceding control over the asset. And from the point of view of the capitalist, the government is retaining the right to interfere with how a private company is run, and thus making the whole venture far less likely to succeed commercially. On top of all that, the newly privatised company intends to borrow at least as much as it earned from the floatation as soon as privatisation is completed. Possibly significantly more. All of which reduces the price that investors are willing to pay for those shares that are made available.

Given the likely direction to be taken by the airline industry in the face of peak oil, this will result in the collapse of the privatised Aer Lingus within about 10 years. Probably less given how deeply in debt they will be. And there’ll be very little the government will be able to do about it, except wait until the company runs itself into a massive mountain of debt and bail them out at an absurd cost to the exchequer. Far, far more than was gained in the sell-off.

But hey, I’ve no doubt a bunch of already-wealthy speculators will make a small fortune in the immediate aftermath of the privatisation. So that’s alright then. Once the government looks after them, the average citizen can rest easy knowing he or she only has to become a millionaire and they too will be represented by the people they vote for.

Market disengagement instead of privatisation

What should be done is obvious. Market disengagement. And what annoyed me about Questions & Answers was the fact that not a single member of the panel even hinted at having thought in these terms, let alone giving them the headspace to examine seriously. The Labour TD was opposed to privatisation, as are her party. Credit where it’s due. However her objections were all about practical issues. It’s as though the notion that there may be an ideological debate to be had was somehow quaint. Faintly embarrassing. You got the feeling that perhaps she had convictions, but wouldn’t dream of admitting that in public… so if you could demonstrate that “the deal was good” for the taxpayer that all would be well.

She even resorted to the bland buzzwords of doomed capitalism. About how “everyone wants to see” Aer Lingus compete well in the marketplace. About how “of course” we want to see the company grow and expand into new routes and markets. Sheesh… doesn’t anyone actually believe anything anymore? I mean aside from The Race For Profit Is A Race That Must Be Won.

I was reminded of Douglas Adams’ wonderful observation about the BBC…

Television companies are not in the business of delivering television programs to their audience, they’re in the business of delivering audiences to their advertisers. (This is why the BBC has such a schizophrenic time – it’s actually in a different business from all its competitors)

Douglas Adams | What have we got to lose?

You see, it is my belief that a state airline should not be trying to “compete” at all. In the marketplace or anywhere else. It should be run, like any other state asset, in a manner that can best serve the Irish public. Everyone on the panel, and – it seems – everyone in the Irish media, believes that Aer Lingus needs significant new investment to buy more planes so that it can expand. But that’s complete nonsense. It is not the best way to serve the Irish public. The last thing Aer Lingus should be planning is expansion.

Small is beautiful

Look, the airline business is at its peak right now. Maybe another two years… maybe three tops. After that, it’s permanently downhill for jet-engined passenger flight. But I accept that whatever commercial flight does still exist during the next 10 or 15 years will look something like its present form. There’ll just be a lot less of it, and it’ll be much more expensive. Eventually it’ll die completely and all international flight will be done in slow solar-powered dirigibles, and the enterprise will become rather sedate and civilised, with dining rooms and cool observation decks and everything (that’s the optimist talking… I usually keep him locked in the cellar).

But until then, and while modern air travel is gasping its last, there will remain a need for scheduled flights to and from this country. It is the job of a state airline to provide that service as effectively as possible. It is not its job to compete with other airlines in the lucrative low-cost short-haul market. Nor its job to expand into another five US destinations and provide the Irish consumer with more choice. Its job is to ensure that Irish people can get to and from wherever they need to go, whenever they need to go there. That this island does not become isolated before anywhere else. Climate change activists may not like this job, but all the same, that’s what it is.

And to this end, the best strategy is to begin reducing the size of the company and securing its ability to do two things very very well. Getting people to and from Heathrow efficiently. And getting people to and from New York efficiently. From Heathrow there are connecting flights to every major city in the world. From New York, to everywhere in America.

Over a period of a couple of years, Aer Lingus should sell off its entire fleet with the exception of those aircraft required to service New York and London. This would almost certainly (bizarrely) net the government more than the sale of the company as a whole. Of course, the workforce and the unions won’t like that very much. And that’s where the traditional left is really coming from with its desire for expansion.

But look, these are well-trained professionals by-and-large and they’ll be beating the rush. The entire industry is going to be shedding jobs before too long; let the Aer Lingus staff get that particular skillset into the job market before the others. And by losing their jobs because of a deliberate scale-down and asset sale, they can get very generous redundancy cheques; unlike those who lose their jobs through bankruptcy. The rest of the money from the asset sale (planes cost a lot of money, I’m sure there’ll be some left over) can make up the current pensions deficit in the company.

Those two routes alone may not make a profitable company. I honestly don’t know. But even if it didn’t, I’m certain it could be done efficiently enough so that the shortfall in the running costs won’t cost the taxpayer too much. And in return for that small tax burden, Irish people know that they are securely connected to the rest of the world via a service they themselves own and control. At least until either Heathrow or New York cease fulfilling their function due to peak oil… but I guarantee you that a privatised Aer Lingus will go under before that happens.

Capitalists will complain of course. Blah blah blah government subsidies blah blah blah restrictive practices unfair competition blah. And yes. It’s all those things. Even the blahs. What part of “anti-capitalist” don’t you understand? But hey, just think of all the fun the other airlines will have fighting for scraps… expanding into the routes abandoned by Aer Lingus… after all, if Aer Lingus is selling the planes, someone is buying (and it’s a little known fact that there’s a shortage of commercial jet aircraft in the market at the moment… airlines are placing big orders and having to wait years for delivery… right now, it’s a sellers market).

Many on my side of the barbed wire may be looking at me a little askew also. Am I trying to put forward some kind of sustainable jet airline industry idea here? Preaching business as usual? Isn’t that precisely what I criticise the mainstream environmental movement for doing? Well yes, that is what I criticise the Greens for, but no that’s not what I’m doing.

If tomorrow I were ordained God Emperor, then it’d be solar-powered dirigibles or nothing. So get those thinking caps on over at JPL, you folks are very very smart, I’ve no doubt you can adapt to a new specification and come up with some wild new ideas. The reality is, whatever way you cut it, the airline industry – in its current form – will not survive.

However, what would I do in the unlikely event that I’m not made God Emperor, but instead merely put in charge of Aer Lingus and given a specific brief… “Turn this profitable company into a public service and ensure that Ireland is connected to the international transport network so long as that network exists”.

And well, that’s what I’d do.